"4) the cell is the most complex factory in the universe. How could it arise without intelligence ? "

Here's the main problem. YOU can't understand how it could arise without intelligence. Therefore, it requires an intelligence.

Not only i can't understand it. The whole scientific community can't. For obvious reasons. The cell is irreducible complex. If even one protein, like topoisomerase is missing, the cell dies. Abiogenesis is impossible to the extreme. But since a creator does not fit your wished world view without God, no matter what, the evidence is rejected and neglected.

"4) the cell is the most complex factory in the universe. How could it arise without intelligence ? "

Here's the main problem. YOU can't understand how it could arise without intelligence. Therefore, it requires an intelligence.

Not only i can't understand it. The whole scientific community can't. For obvious reasons. The cell is irreducible complex. If even one protein, like topoisomerase is missing, the cell dies. Abiogenesis is impossible to the extreme. But since a creator does not fit your wished world view without God, no matter what, the evidence is rejected and neglected.

So, what you're saying is that the only known intelligence can't do what you say must be done by an intelligent designer.

LOL

There is no evidence for a designer. Incredulity is not evidence.

--------------Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims.

"4) the cell is the most complex factory in the universe. How could it arise without intelligence ? "

Here's the main problem. YOU can't understand how it could arise without intelligence. Therefore, it requires an intelligence.

Not only i can't understand it. The whole scientific community can't. For obvious reasons. The cell is irreducible complex. If even one protein, like topoisomerase is missing, the cell dies. Abiogenesis is impossible to the extreme. But since a creator does not fit your wished world view without God, no matter what, the evidence is rejected and neglected.

So, what you're saying is that the only known intelligence can't do what you say must be done by an intelligent designer.

LOL

There is no evidence for a designer. Incredulity is not evidence.

Keep your self delusion. The cell is too complex to be re-created by man. And to say that the most compex factory on earth does not require a mind to make it, is irrational to the extreme.

"4) the cell is the most complex factory in the universe. How could it arise without intelligence ? "

Here's the main problem. YOU can't understand how it could arise without intelligence. Therefore, it requires an intelligence.

Not only i can't understand it. The whole scientific community can't. For obvious reasons. The cell is irreducible complex. If even one protein, like topoisomerase is missing, the cell dies. Abiogenesis is impossible to the extreme. But since a creator does not fit your wished world view without God, no matter what, the evidence is rejected and neglected.

So, what you're saying is that the only known intelligence can't do what you say must be done by an intelligent designer.

LOL

There is no evidence for a designer. Incredulity is not evidence.

Keep your self delusion. The cell is too complex to be re-created by man. And to say that the most compex factory on earth does not require a mind to make it, is irrational to the extreme.

Fantastic. As requested dozens of times, provide evidence that a mind that COULD make it actually EXISTS.

The existence of a thing is not evidence of a designer of the thing.

--------------Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims.

The cell is too complex to be re-created by man. And to say that the most compex factory on earth does not require a mind to make it, is irrational to the extreme.

I quote you, from one of your earliest posts in this thread: "We also know from broad and repeated experience that intelligent agents can and do produce information-rich systems…" However, the only "intelligent agents" which we actually do have "broad and repeated experience" of their "produc[ing] information-rich systems" are human beings.

In the absence of time-travel, it's clearly absurd to suppose that human beings could have created something which existed before any human being was born. Please provide evidence that "intelligent agents" other than human beings have created "information-rich systems". If you can't won't do that, please provide evidence that human beings have time-traveled to any era before any human being was born.

The cell is too complex to be re-created by man. And to say that the most compex factory on earth does not require a mind to make it, is irrational to the extreme.

I quote you, from one of your earliest posts in this thread: "We also know from broad and repeated experience that intelligent agents can and do produce information-rich systems…" However, the only "intelligent agents" which we actually do have "broad and repeated experience" of their "produc[ing] information-rich systems" are human beings.

In the absence of time-travel, it's clearly absurd to suppose that human beings could have created something which existed before any human being was born. Please provide evidence that "intelligent agents" other than human beings have created "information-rich systems". If you can't won't do that, please provide evidence that human beings have time-traveled to any era before any human being was born.

The cell is too complex to be re-created by man. And to say that the most compex factory on earth does not require a mind to make it, is irrational to the extreme.

I quote you, from one of your earliest posts in this thread: "We also know from broad and repeated experience that intelligent agents can and do produce information-rich systems…" However, the only "intelligent agents" which we actually do have "broad and repeated experience" of their "produc[ing] information-rich systems" are human beings.

In the absence of time-travel, it's clearly absurd to suppose that human beings could have created something which existed before any human being was born. Please provide evidence that "intelligent agents" other than human beings have created "information-rich systems". If you can't won't do that, please provide evidence that human beings have time-traveled to any era before any human being was born.

well, of course God is not a human being.

Feel free to provide evidence that ANY non-human intelligence exists.

Feel free to provide evidence that ANY non-human intelligence did all the things you say evolution can't.

Feel free to provide evidence that ANY deity exists.

--------------Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims.

The cell is too complex to be re-created by man. And to say that the most compex factory on earth does not require a mind to make it, is irrational to the extreme.

I quote you, from one of your earliest posts in this thread: "We also know from broad and repeated experience that intelligent agents can and do produce information-rich systems…" However, the only "intelligent agents" which we actually do have "broad and repeated experience" of their "produc[ing] information-rich systems" are human beings.

In the absence of time-travel, it's clearly absurd to suppose that human beings could have created something which existed before any human being was born. Please provide evidence that "intelligent agents" other than human beings have created "information-rich systems". If you can't won't do that, please provide evidence that human beings have time-traveled to any era before any human being was born.

well, of course God is not a human being.

That's nice.

If you want to believe the religious notion that your favorite deity-of-choice created life, go for it. Have a ball. But if you want to argue that my favorite deity-of-choice created life is an honest-to-Bacon scientific theory, well, you're gonna have to pony up some, you know, actual evidence in support of your soi-disant 'scientific theory'. Well, you're gonna have to do that if you want real scientists to take your 'theory' seriously.

I ask, one more time: Do you have any evidence that "intelligent agents" other than human beings have created "information-rich systems"?

And, lest my other question be forgotten: What does "new information" look like?

When a complex organism mommy and a complex organism daddy love each other very much, they hug each other in a special way and months later a baby complex organism is born.The stork is a myth.(So are immaterial causal agents.)

Keep your self delusion. The cell is too complex to be re-created by man. And to say that the most compex factory on earth does not require a mind to make it, is irrational to the extreme.

And, yet, that's exactly what the evidence shows. Going against the evidence is irrational. Show us god, then show us god did it. Otherwise, you fail.

Show me nothing did it. Otherwise, you fail.

Again. We have. The fact that you refuse to accept scientific evidence is your problem. Not ours.

This thread is full of examples of complex systems arising WITHOUT intelligent agents. You can't accept that, so you ignore it. You flounce off and come back 3-4 weeks later repeating the same thing, getting the same response, and ignoring it.

It's a shame really. You are so hypocritical. You use the tools given to you by science in an attempt to show that science is wrong.

You have already failed. By allowing other humans, who are not trustworthy, to do your thinking for you. You believe their words so much, that you refuse to accept reality. You live in a straight- jacket of your own making.

--------------Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims.

It is an observational fact that irreducibly complex systems routinely evolve.

If there were no irreducibly complex systems in existence, then the theory of evolution would be false, because they are unambigously predicted to result from the evolutionary process. We even know HOW IC systems evolve. They start by NOT being indispensible, but become gradually incorporated into systems and structures that were themselves ALSO once upon a time, dispensible, but have since become indispensible by the same process.

Quote (Otangelo @ Feb. 10 2016,17:57)

If even one protein, like topoisomerase is missing, the cell dies.

This is actually false as Larry Moran PROVED to you on this blog with references.

Topoisomerases originated before genomes were so large that DNA winding was a lethal problem, and gradually co-evolved with the expansion of the winding stretches of the genome.

Quote (Otangelo @ Feb. 10 2016,17:57)

Abiogenesis is impossible to the extreme.

Impossibility is a binary property. Something is either impossible or it is not. There is no degree of impossibility. Besides, there is absolutely zero evidence that abiogenesis is impossible and in fact there is evidence from physics that abiogenesis IS possible. According to statistical mechanics, living organisms are just another unlikely microstate of matter. Which means that, statistically speaking, they are still possible, just very very unlikely to arise spontaneously.

But unlikely =/= (that sign means "does not equal") impossible.

I'll repeat for the benefit of your subnormal encephalization:Unlikely =/= impossibleUnlikely does not equal impossibleUnlikely is not equal to impossibleWhat is unlikely is not impossible

Abiogenesis by spontaneous generation is only unlikely, it is not impossible.

There are many options that are much much more likely than spontaneous generation. Likelihood depends on already occupied microstates. There could be a gradual progression of microstates from the unliving to the living states. This is strictly speaking also possible according to statistical mechanics.

All of science refutes the assertion that the origin of life is impossible. The origin of life is NOT impossible, the origin of life is possible.

Quote (Otangelo @ Feb. 10 2016,17:57)

But since a creator does not fit your wished world view without God

I would like for there to be a god. I really wish God existed, because I don't want to die. I also want to meet again, long lost and much loved family members. I do not believe in God because I don't want to, I do not believe in God becuase the intellectual and evidential case for the existence of God is too weak to be believed rationally.

Quote (Otangelo @ Feb. 10 2016,17:57)

no matter what, the evidence is rejected and neglected.

But you have not brought any evidence. All your arguments suffer form fundamental logical flaws and fallacies. The reason your are failing to produce God-belief in any of us is that your arguments and your evidence is insufficient to justify rational belief.

Some other things for Otangelo to consider and provide input on [as if]:What is the opposite of design? What is the alternative to design as an 'explanation' for the existence of new things?

Design as it is usually taken is quite distinct from manufacture. It is trivially true that many things are designed but never created. It is equally true that many things are created but not designed in advance.Thus the question -- how is it proper to speak of design as a mechanism that produces anything but designs?

IOW, 'Design'? You keep using that word but I don't think you know what it means. Precision in terminology and thought is critically important.What, specifically, do you mean by 'design'?

Keep your self delusion. The cell is too complex to be re-created by man. And to say that the most compex factory on earth does not require a mind to make it, is irrational to the extreme.

And, yet, that's exactly what the evidence shows. Going against the evidence is irrational. Show us god, then show us god did it. Otherwise, you fail.

Show me nothing did it. Otherwise, you fail.

I don't believe that "nothing" did anything. As such, there is a serious issue with you asking us to demonstrate "nothing" doing anything, because you are asking us to evidentially support a proposition none of us hold.

It is an observational fact that irreducibly complex systems routinely evolve.

Its a observational fact that you never learn.

Hello, Otangelo! I see that you have, once again, overlooked my two as-yet-unanswered questions. Let's see if making them larger will help you see them:

Do you have any evidence that "intelligent agents" other than human beings have created "information-rich systems"?

What does "new information" look like?

Its enough to infer that "intelligent agents" other than human beings have created "information-rich systems, based on the facts, that ONLY INTELLIGENT AGENTS ARE ABLE TO CREATE INFORMATION RICH, COMPLEX, SPECIFIED CODES. Since DNA stores that kind of information, and evidently it were not humans creating it, that there is other intelligence around beside us. Much more intelligent agents, btw.

It is an observational fact that irreducibly complex systems routinely evolve.

Its a observational fact that you never learn.

Hello, Otangelo! I see that you have, once again, overlooked my two as-yet-unanswered questions. Let's see if making them larger will help you see them:

Do you have any evidence that "intelligent agents" other than human beings have created "information-rich systems"?

What does "new information" look like?

Its enough to infer that "intelligent agents" other than human beings have created "information-rich systems, based on the facts, that ONLY INTELLIGENT AGENTS ARE ABLE TO CREATE INFORMATION RICH, COMPLEX, SPECIFIED CODES. Since DNA stores that kind of information, and evidently it were not humans creating it, that there is other intelligence around beside us. Much more intelligent agents, btw.

Asserts facts unsupported by evidence.The best you've been able to do is show you do not understand probability.Incredibly improbable things happen All the time.Improbable does not equal impossible. Ever.